What was the main division of churches. What was the main reason for the division of churches? Division of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox

What was the main reason for the division of churches? The division of the Christian Church into Catholic and Orthodox. In 1054, the Christian Church collapsed into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Greek Catholic). The Eastern Christian Church began to be called Orthodox, i.e. true believer, and those professing Christianity according to the Greek rite are orthodox or true believers. The disagreements between East and West that caused the “Great Schism” and accumulated over the centuries were political, cultural, ecclesiological, theological and ritual in nature. a) Political disagreements between East and West were rooted in the political antagonism between the Roman popes and the Byzantine emperors (basileus). At the time of the apostles, when the Christian Church was just emerging, the Roman Empire was a unified empire, both politically and culturally, headed by one emperor. From the end of the 3rd century. the empire, de jure still unified, was de facto divided into two parts - Eastern and Western, each of which was under the control of its own emperor (Emperor Theodosius (346-395) was the last Roman emperor who led the entire Roman Empire). Constantine exacerbated the process of division by founding a new capital in the east, Constantinople, along with ancient Rome in Italy. The Roman bishops, based on the central position of Rome as an imperial city, and on the origin of the see from the supreme apostle Peter, began to claim a special, dominant position in the entire Church. In subsequent centuries, the ambitions of the Roman high priests only grew, pride took its poisonous roots deeper and deeper into the church life of the West. Unlike the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Roman Popes maintained independence from the Byzantine emperors, did not submit to them unless they considered it necessary, and sometimes openly opposed them. In addition, in the year 800, Pope Leo III in Rome crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne with the imperial crown as Roman Emperor, who in the eyes of his contemporaries became “equal” to the Eastern Emperor and on whose political power the Bishop of Rome was able to rely in his claims. The emperors of the Byzantine Empire, who themselves considered themselves successors to the Roman Empire, refused to recognize the imperial title for Charles. The Byzantines viewed Charlemagne as a usurper and the papal coronation as an act of division within the empire. b) The cultural alienation between East and West was largely due to the fact that in the Eastern Roman Empire they spoke Greek, and in the Western Empire they spoke Latin. In the time of the apostles, when the Roman Empire was unified, Greek and Latin were understood almost everywhere, and many could speak both languages. However, by 450 very few in Western Europe could read Greek, and after 600 few in Byzantium spoke Latin, the language of the Romans, although the empire continued to be called Roman. If the Greeks wanted to read the books of Latin authors, and the Latins the works of the Greeks, they could only do this in translation. And this meant that the Greek East and the Latin West drew information from different sources and read different books, as a result becoming more and more distant from each other. In the East they read Plato and Aristotle, in the West they read Cicero and Seneca. The main theological authorities of the Eastern Church were the fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. In the West, the most widely read Christian author was St. Augustine (who was almost unknown in the East) - his theological system was much simpler to understand and more easily accepted by barbarian converts to Christianity than the sophisticated reasoning of the Greek fathers. c) Ecclesiological disagreements. Political and cultural disagreements could not but affect the life of the Church and only contributed to church discord between Rome and Constantinople. During the entire era of the Ecumenical Councils in the West, the doctrine of papal primacy (i.e., the Roman bishop as the head of the Universal Church) was gradually formed. At the same time, in the East the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople increased, and from the end of the 6th century he acquired the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch”. However, in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople was never perceived as the head of the Universal Church: he was only second in rank after the Bishop of Rome and first in honor among the Eastern patriarchs. In the West, the Pope began to be perceived precisely as the head of the Universal Church, to whom the Church throughout the world must obey. In the East there were 4 sees (i.e. 4 Local Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and, accordingly, 4 patriarchs. The East recognized the Pope as the first bishop of the Church - but first among equals. In the West there was only one throne that claimed apostolic origin - namely, the Roman throne. As a result of this, Rome came to be regarded as the only apostolic see. Although the West accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it itself did not play an active role in them; In the Church, the West saw not so much a college as a monarchy - the monarchy of the Pope. The Greeks recognized the primacy of honor for the Pope, but not universal superiority, as the Pope himself believed. Primacy “in honor” in modern language can mean “most respected”, but it does not abolish the Conciliar structure of the church (that is, making all decisions collectively through the convening of Councils of all churches, especially the apostolic ones). The Pope considered infallibility his prerogative, but the Greeks were convinced that in matters of faith the final decision rested not with the Pope, but with the council, representing all the bishops of the church. d) Theological reasons. The main point of theological dispute between the Churches of the East and West was the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This teaching, based on the Trinitarian views of Blessed Augustine and other Latin fathers, led to a change in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, where it spoke of the Holy Spirit: instead of “from the Father proceeding” in the West they began to say “from the Father and the Son (lat. . Filioque) outgoing." The expression “comes from the Father” is based on the words of Christ Himself (see John 15:26) and in this sense has indisputable authority, while the addition “and the Son” has no basis either in Scripture or in the Tradition of the early Christian Church: its began to be inserted into the Creed only at the Toledo Councils of the 6th-7th centuries, presumably as a protective measure against Arianism. From Spain, the Filioque came to France and Germany, where it was approved at the Frankfurt Council in 794. The court theologians of Charlemagne even began to reproach the Byzantines for reciting the Creed without the Filioque. Rome resisted changes to the Creed for some time. In 808, Pope Leo III wrote to Charlemagne that although the Filioque was theologically acceptable, its inclusion in the Creed was undesirable. Leo placed tablets with the Creed without the Filioque in St. Peter's Basilica. However, by the beginning of the 11th century, the reading of the Creed with the addition of “and the Son” entered into Roman practice. Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to the Filioque for two reasons. Firstly, the Creed is the property of the entire Church, and any changes can only be made to it by an Ecumenical Council. By changing the Creed without consultation with the East, the West (according to Khomyakov) is guilty of moral fratricide, a sin against the unity of the Church. Secondly, most Orthodox believe that the Filioque is theologically incorrect. The Orthodox believe that the Spirit comes only from the Father, and consider it heresy to claim that He also comes from the Son. e) Ritual differences between East and West have existed throughout the history of Christianity. The liturgical charter of the Roman Church differed from the charters of the Eastern Churches. A whole series of ritual details separated the Churches of the East and the West. In the middle of the 11th century, the main issue of a ritual nature, on which polemics flared up between East and West, was the use of unleavened bread by the Latins at the Eucharist, while the Byzantines consumed leavened bread. Behind this seemingly insignificant difference, the Byzantines saw a serious difference in the theological view of the essence of the Body of Christ, taught to the faithful in the Eucharist: if leavened bread symbolizes the fact that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with our flesh, then unleavened bread is a symbol of the difference between the flesh of Christ and our flesh. In the service of unleavened bread, the Greeks saw an attack on the core point of Eastern Christian theology - the doctrine of deification (which was little known in the West). These were all disagreements that preceded the conflict of 1054. Ultimately, West and East disagreed on questions of doctrine, mainly on two issues: papal primacy and the Filioque. The reason for the schism The immediate reason for the church schism was the conflict between the first hierarchs of the two capitals - Rome and Constantinople. The Roman high priest was Leo IX. While still a German bishop, he refused the Roman See for a long time and only at the persistent requests of the clergy and Emperor Henry III himself agreed to accept the papal tiara. On one of the rainy autumn days of 1048, in a coarse hair shirt - the clothing of penitents, with bare feet and a head covered in ashes, he entered Rome to take the Roman throne. This unusual behavior flattered the pride of the townspeople. With the crowds cheering, he was immediately proclaimed pope. Leo IX was convinced of the high importance of the Roman See for the entire Christian world. He tried with all his might to restore the previously wavered papal influence in both the West and the East. From this time on, the active growth of both the church and socio-political significance of the papacy as an institution of power began. Pope Leo achieved respect for himself and his cathedra not only through radical reforms, but also by actively acting as a defender of all the oppressed and offended. This is what made the pope seek a political alliance with Byzantium. At that time, Rome's political enemy were the Normans, who had already captured Sicily and were now threatening Italy. Emperor Henry could not provide the pope with the necessary military support, and the pope did not want to give up his role as defender of Italy and Rome. Leo IX decided to ask for help from the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since 1043, Michael Cerullarius has been the Patriarch of Constantinople. He came from a noble aristocratic family and held a high position under the emperor. But after a failed palace coup, when a group of conspirators tried to elevate him to the throne, Mikhail was deprived of his property and forcibly tonsured a monk. The new emperor Constantine Monomakh made the persecuted man his closest adviser, and then, with the consent of the clergy and the people, Michael took the patriarchal see. Having devoted himself to the service of the Church, the new patriarch retained the features of an imperious and state-minded man who did not tolerate the derogation of his authority and the authority of the See of Constantinople. In the resulting correspondence between the pope and the patriarch, Leo IX insisted on the primacy of the Roman see. In his letter, he pointed out to Michael that the Church of Constantinople and even the entire East should obey and honor the Roman Church as a mother. With this provision, the pope also justified the ritual differences between the Roman Church and the Churches of the East. Michael was ready to come to terms with any differences, but on one issue his position remained irreconcilable: he did not want to recognize the Roman See as superior to the See of Constantinople. The Roman bishop did not want to agree to such equality. In the spring of 1054, an embassy from Rome headed by Cardinal Humbert, an ardent and arrogant man, arrived in Constantinople. Together with him, as legates, came the deacon-cardinal Frederick (future Pope Stephen IX) and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi. The purpose of the visit was to meet with Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos and discuss the possibilities of a military alliance with Byzantium, as well as to reconcile with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius, without diminishing the primacy of the Roman See. However, from the very beginning the embassy took a tone that was not consistent with reconciliation. The pope's ambassadors treated the patriarch without due respect, arrogantly and coldly. Seeing such an attitude towards himself, the patriarch repaid them in kind. At the convened Council, Michael allocated the last place to the papal legates. Cardinal Humbert considered this a humiliation and refused to conduct any negotiations with the patriarch. The news of the death of Pope Leo that came from Rome did not stop the papal legates. They continued to act with the same boldness, wanting to teach the disobedient patriarch a lesson. On July 15, 1054, when the St. Sophia Cathedral was filled with praying people, the legates walked to the altar and, interrupting the service, denounced Patriarch Michael Kerullarius. They then placed on the throne a papal bull in Latin, which excommunicated the patriarch and his followers and brought forward ten charges of heresy: one of the charges concerned the “omission” of the Filioque in the Creed. Coming out of the temple, the papal ambassadors shook off the dust from their feet and exclaimed: “Let God see and judge.” Everyone was so amazed by what they saw that there was deathly silence. The patriarch, numb with amazement, initially refused to accept the bull, but then ordered it to be translated into Greek. When the contents of the bull were announced to the people, such great excitement began that the legates had to hastily leave Constantinople. The people supported their patriarch. On July 20, 1054, Patriarch Michael Cerullarius convened a Council of 20 bishops, at which he subjected the papal legates to excommunication. The Acts of the Council were sent to all Eastern Patriarchs. This is how the “great schism” occurred. Formally, this was a break between the Local Churches of Rome and Constantinople, but the Patriarch of Constantinople was subsequently supported by other Eastern Patriarchates, as well as young Churches that were part of the orbit of influence of Byzantium, in particular the Russian Church. The Church in the West over time adopted the name Catholic; The Church in the East is called Orthodox because it preserves the Christian doctrine intact. Both Orthodoxy and Rome equally considered themselves right in controversial issues of doctrine, and their opponent wrong, therefore, after the schism, both Rome and the Orthodox Church laid claim to the title of true church. But even after 1054, friendly relations between East and West remained. Both parts of Christendom had not yet realized the full extent of the gap, and people on both sides hoped that the misunderstandings could be settled without much difficulty. Attempts to negotiate reunification were made for another century and a half. The dispute between Rome and Constantinople largely went unnoticed by ordinary Christians. The Russian abbot Daniel of Chernigov, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106-1107, found the Greeks and Latins praying in agreement in holy places. True, he noted with satisfaction that during the descent of the Holy Fire on Easter, the Greek lamps miraculously ignited, but the Latins were forced to light their lamps from the Greek ones. The final division between East and West came only with the beginning of the Crusades, which brought with them a spirit of hatred and malice, as well as after the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

Question 1. What ideas about the structure of society, about exemplary behavior, about poverty and wealth did the church affirm? Did the church itself follow these statements?

Answer. According to the teaching of the church at that time, it was fair to divide society into those who pray, those who fight and, finally, those who work. Following the commandments of the New Testament was considered exemplary behavior. In particular, those who renounced earthly goods were considered saints. As an example to people, they set, for example, hermits who went into the desert and lived there alone for years, eating poorly and constantly praying to the Lord. But the church itself did not strive for poverty. She concentrated significant wealth in her hands, sometimes the most significant in the country.

Question 2: What was the main reason for the division of churches?

Answer. The reason was a dispute about who should be in charge in the Christian world: the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople. And they found many reasons, mainly discrepancies in rituals, accusations from Catholics that the Orthodox patriarch forces priests not to shave their beards, etc.

Question 3. Give facts that indicate that under Innocent III the power of the pope reached its greatest power.

Answer. Facts about Innocent III:

1) expanded the boundaries of the Papal States to the greatest extent in its history;

2) in the confrontation with the King of England John the Landless, he won a complete victory and forced the king to accept all his conditions;

3) organized the first crusade in history on the territory of Western Europe - in Languedoc (today the southern part of France);

4) not only organized the IV Crusade, but was also the first pope to organize the collection of money for the needs of the campaign;

5) organized the Lateran IV Ecumenical Council, which made many important decisions;

6) his vassals were England, Poland and some states on the Iberian Peninsula.

Question 4. What did the heretics preach?

Answer. There were many heretical teachings, they preached different things. But there was often criticism of the pomp of the church’s rites, their high cost, the wealth of the church and the power of the Pope. Also, many (and not only among heretics, but also in the church itself) argued that a person who sins cannot be a priest.

Question 5. How did the Catholic Church fight heretics?

Answer. Heretics were fought harshly. Those who repented were imprisoned and forced to make long and dangerous journeys to holy places. Those who did not repent were excommunicated from the church. The Pope could excommunicate an entire region or country. It was a tool of political struggle. Then usually the vassals rebelled against the lord of that area or the king of that country. And individual people, excommunicated from the church for heresy, fell into the hands of secular authorities, who sentenced them to be burned at the stake.

Question 6. What are mendicant orders?

Answer. Some people renounced earthly goods in order to live according to the commandments of Christ. They united into monastic orders in order to live by the same rules and have their own organization. Members of such orders took vows (that is, made oaths) usual for monks, but their rules of life differed from ordinary monastic ones.

Question 7. Which of the monastic orders especially helped the Pope in the fight against heresies? What did this mean?

Answer. The Dominican Order helped the Pope. The monks of this particular order carried out investigations of the papal inquisition (besides it, there were other types of inquisition, where the investigation was carried out by other people). But at the same time they tried to protect from heresies and sermons.

Question 8. Draw a diagram of the “Sources of Wealth of the Church.”

Answer. Sources of Church Wealth:

1) tithe from all believers;

2) payment for all church ceremonies;

3) sale of indulgences;

4) gifts from kings and feudal lords (in the form of large sums of money and land with peasants).

Left a reply Guest

The first powerful schism of the church into the western, centered in Rome, and the eastern, with
center in Constantinople took place at the Council of Nicea, assembled
Constantine in 325 AD e. (since the division of the ancient Roman
empire into two parts, with the founding of Constantinople (Byzantium)
Emperor Constantine the Great in 324-330. and moving the capital there
Roman Empire) since then the struggle between the two Churches has become
fact of the struggle for primacy between the two capitals), and the reason for the split
there was recognition of the trinity of God (Trinity) alone and recognition
the subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father - by others.
The reason for the Great Schism of 1054 was a dispute over lands in southern Italy that formally belonged to Byzantium. Having learned that the Greek rite was being crowded out and forgotten there, the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius closed all the churches of the Latin rite in Constantinople. At the same time, he demanded that Rome recognize itself as equal in honor as the Ecumenical Patriarch. Leo IX refused him this and soon died. Meanwhile, papal ambassadors led by Cardinal Humbert arrived in Constantinople. The offended patriarch did not accept them, but only presented written denunciations of the Latin rites. Humbert, in turn, accused the patriarch of several heresies, and on July 16, 1054, he arbitrarily declared an anathema to the patriarch and his followers. Michael Cerularius responded with a Council resolution (reproducing all the accusations of Photius in 867) and anathema to the entire embassy. Thus, in terms of genre, it was yet another schism, which was not immediately recognized as the final break between East and West.
The actual division of the churches was a long process that took place over four centuries (from the 9th to the 12th centuries), and its reason was rooted in the increasing diversity of ecclesiological traditions.

Reasons for the split
The schism had many reasons: ritual, dogmatic, ethical differences between the Western and Eastern Churches, property disputes, the struggle between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople for primacy among the Christian patriarchs, different languages ​​of worship (Latin in the Western Church and Greek in the Eastern).

The point of view of the Western (Catholic) Church.
The letter of excommunication was presented on July 16, 1054 in Constantinople in the St. Sophia Church on the holy altar during a service by the legate of the Pope, Cardinal Humbert. The letter of excommunication contained the following accusations against the Eastern Church:
* 1. The Church of Constantinople does not recognize the Holy Roman Church as the first apostolic see, which, as the head, has the care of all Churches,
* 2. Michael is wrongly called the patriarch,
* 3. like the Simonians, they sell the gift of God,
* 4. like the Valesians, they castrate newcomers and make them not only clergy, but also bishops.
* 5. Like the Arians, they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, especially the Latins.
* 6. Like the Donatists, they claim that throughout the world, with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ, the true Eucharist, and baptism have perished.
* 7. Like the Nicolaitans, altar servers are allowed to marry.
* 8. Like the Northerners, they slander the law of Moses.
* 9. Like the Doukhobors, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (filioque) in the symbol of faith.
* 10. Like the Manichaeans, they consider leaven to be animate.
* 11. Like the Nazirites, they observe the bodily purifications of the Jews; newborn children are not baptized before eight days after birth; mothers are not honored with communion, and if they are pagans, they are denied baptism.

The point of view of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church
* “At the sight of such an act of the papal legates, publicly insulting the Eastern Church, the Church of Constantinople, in self-defense, for its part, also pronounced condemnation on the Roman Church, or, better to say, on the papal legates, led by the Roman Pontiff. On July 20 of the same year, Patriarch Michael convened a council, at which the instigators of church discord received due retribution. The text of the full definition of this council in Russian is still not known.

Religion is a spiritual component of life, according to many. Nowadays there are many different beliefs, but in the center there are always two directions that attract the most attention. The Orthodox and Catholic churches are the largest and most global in the religious world. But once it was one single church, one faith. Why and how the division of churches occurred is quite difficult to judge, because only historical information has survived to this day, but certain conclusions can still be drawn from it.

Split

Officially, the collapse occurred in 1054, it was then that two new religious directions appeared: Western and Eastern, or, as they are commonly called, Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. Since then, adherents of the Eastern religion have been considered to be orthodox and faithful. But the reason for the division of religions began to emerge long before the ninth century and gradually led to great differences. The division of the Christian Church into Western and Eastern was quite expected on the basis of these conflicts.

Disagreements between churches

The ground for the great schism was being laid on all sides. The conflict concerned almost all areas. The churches could not find agreement either in rituals, or in politics, or in culture. The nature of the problems was ecclesiological and theological, and it was no longer possible to hope for a peaceful solution to the issue.

Disagreements in politics

The main problem of the conflict on political grounds was the antagonism between the Byzantine emperors and the Popes. When the church was just emerging and getting on its feet, all of Rome was a single empire. Everything was one - politics, culture, and there was only one ruler at the head. But from the end of the third century political disagreements began. Still remaining a single empire, Rome was divided into several parts. The history of the division of churches is directly dependent on politics, because it was Emperor Constantine who initiated the schism by founding a new capital on the eastern side of Rome, known in modern times as Constantinople.

Naturally, the bishops began to base themselves on territorial position, and since it was there that the see of the Apostle Peter was founded, they decided that it was time to declare themselves and gain more power, to become the dominant part of the entire Church. And the more time passed, the more ambitious the bishops perceived the situation. The Western church was consumed by pride.

In turn, the Popes defended the rights of the church, did not depend on the state of politics, and sometimes even opposed imperial opinion. But what was the main reason for the division of churches on political grounds was the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo the Third, while the Byzantine successors to the throne completely refused to recognize the rule of Charles and openly considered him a usurper. Thus, the struggle for the throne also affected spiritual matters.

The Christian Church has never been united. This is very important to remember so as not to fall into the extremes that have so often occurred in the history of this religion. From the New Testament it is clear that the disciples of Jesus Christ, even during his lifetime, had disputes about which of them was more important and important in the nascent community. Two of them - John and James - even asked for thrones on the right and left hands of Christ in the coming kingdom. After the death of the founder, the first thing Christians began to do was to divide into various opposing groups. The Book of Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles report numerous false apostles, heretics, and those who emerged from among the first Christians and founded their own community. Of course, they looked at the authors of the New Testament texts and their communities in the same way - as heretical and schismatic communities. Why did this happen and what was the main reason for the division of churches?

Ante-Nicene Church Period

We know extremely little about what Christianity was like before 325. All we know is that it is a messianic movement within Judaism that was initiated by a traveling preacher named Jesus. His teaching was rejected by the majority of Jews, and Jesus himself was crucified. A few followers, however, claimed that he had risen from the dead and declared him to be the messiah promised by the prophets of the Tanakh and who had come to save the world. Faced with total rejection among their compatriots, they spread their preaching among the pagans, from among whom they found many adherents.

The first divisions among Christians

During this mission, the first schism of the Christian Church occurred. When going out to preach, the apostles did not have a codified written doctrine and general principles of preaching. Therefore, they preached different Christs, different theories and concepts of salvation, and imposed different ethical and religious obligations on converts. Some of them forced pagan Christians to be circumcised, observe the rules of kashrut, keep the Sabbath, and fulfill other provisions of the Mosaic Law. Others, on the contrary, abolished all the requirements of the Old Testament, not only in relation to converted pagans, but also in relation to themselves. In addition, some considered Christ to be the messiah, a prophet, but at the same time a man, while others began to endow him with divine qualities. Soon a layer of dubious legends appeared, such as stories about events from childhood and other things. Plus, the saving role of Christ was assessed differently. All this led to significant contradictions and conflicts within the early Christians and initiated a split in the Christian church.

Similar differences in views (up to mutual rejection of each other) between the apostles Peter, James and Paul are clearly visible. Modern scholars studying the division of churches identify four main branches of Christianity at this stage. In addition to the three leaders mentioned above, they add the branch of John - also a separate and independent alliance of local communities. All this is natural, given that Christ did not leave either a viceroy or a successor, and generally did not give any practical instructions for organizing the church of believers. The new communities were completely independent, subject only to the authority of the preacher who founded them and the elected leaders within themselves. Theology, practice and liturgy had independent development in each community. Therefore, episodes of division were present in the Christian environment from the very beginning and they were most often doctrinal in nature.

Post-Nicene period

After he legalized Christianity, and especially after 325, when the first took place in the city of Nicaea, the Orthodox party that he blessed actually absorbed most of the other trends of early Christianity. Those that remained were declared heretics and were outlawed. Christian leaders, represented by bishops, received the status of government officials with all the legal consequences of their new position. As a result, the question of the administrative structure and governance of the Church arose with all seriousness. If in the previous period the reasons for the division of churches were doctrinal and ethical in nature, then in post-Nicene Christianity another important motive was added - political. Thus, an orthodox Catholic who refused to obey his bishop, or the bishop himself who did not recognize the legal authority over himself, for example, a neighboring metropolitan, could find himself outside the church fence.

Video: Union of Brest. A Story of Betrayal (2011)

Divisions of the post-Nicene period

We have already found out what was the main reason for the division of churches during this period. However, clergy often tried to color political motives in doctrinal tones. Therefore, this period provides examples of several very complex schisms in nature - Arian (named after its leader, the priest Arius), Nestorian (named after the founder, Patriarch Nestorius), Monophysite (named after the doctrine of a single nature in Christ) and many others.

Great Schism

The most significant schism in the history of Christianity occurred at the turn of the first and second millennia. The hitherto united orthodox Catholic Church was divided into two independent parts in 1054 - the eastern, now called the Orthodox Church, and the western, known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Reasons for the schism of 1054

In short, the main reason for the division of the church in 1054 was political. The fact is that the Roman Empire at that time consisted of two independent parts. The eastern part of the empire - Byzantium - was ruled by Caesar, whose throne and administrative center was located in Constantinople. The emperor was also the head of the church. The Western Empire was actually ruled by the Bishop of Rome, who concentrated both secular and spiritual power in his hands, and in addition, claimed power in the Byzantine churches. On this basis, of course, disputes and conflicts soon arose, expressed in a number of church claims against each other. Essentially petty quibbles served as a reason for a serious confrontation.

Video: Old Believer Liturgical and ritual features

Ultimately, in 1053, in Constantinople, by order of Patriarch Michael Cerularius, all churches of the Latin rite were closed. In response to this, Pope Leo IX sent an embassy to the capital of Byzantium led by Cardinal Humbert, who excommunicated Michael from the church. In response to this, the patriarch assembled a council and mutual papal legates. No immediate attention was paid to this, and inter-church relations continued as usual. But twenty years later, the initially minor conflict began to be recognized as a fundamental division of the Christian church.

Reformation

The next important split in Christianity is the emergence of Protestantism. This happened in the 30s of the 16th century, when one German monk of the Augustinian order rebelled against the authority of the Bishop of Rome and dared to criticize a number of dogmatic, disciplinary, ethical and other provisions of the Catholic Church. What was the main reason for the division of churches at this moment is difficult to answer unequivocally. Luther was a convinced Christian, and his main motive was the struggle for the purity of faith.

Of course, his movement also became a political force for the liberation of the German churches from the power of the Pope. And this, in turn, freed the hands of secular authorities, no longer constrained by the demands of Rome. For the same reasons, Protestants continued to divide among themselves. Very quickly, many European states began to appear their own ideologists of Protestantism. The Catholic Church began to burst at the seams - many countries fell out of Rome's orbit of influence, others were on the verge of it. At the same time, the Protestants themselves did not have a single spiritual authority, nor a single administrative center, and this partly resembled the organizational chaos of early Christianity. A similar situation is observed among them today.

Modern schisms

We found out what was the main reason for the division of churches in previous eras. What is happening to Christianity in this regard today? First of all, it must be said that significant schisms have not arisen since the Reformation. Existing churches continue to divide into similar small groups. Among the Orthodox there were Old Believer, Old Calendar and Catacomb schisms; several groups also separated from the Catholic Church, and Protestants have been tirelessly fragmenting since their very appearance. Today the number of Protestant denominations is more than twenty thousand. However, nothing fundamentally new has appeared, except for a few semi-Christian organizations like the Mormon Church and Jehovah's Witnesses.

It is important to note that, firstly, today most churches are not associated with the political regime and are separated from the state. And secondly, there is an ecumenical movement that seeks to bring together, if not unite, the various churches. Under these conditions, the main reason for the division of churches is ideological. Today, few people seriously reconsider dogmatics, but movements for the ordination of women, same-sex marriages, etc. receive enormous resonance. Reacting to this, each group separates itself from the others, taking its own principled position, while generally keeping the dogmatic content of Christianity intact.